Initiating a custody case against the mother of my children was an incredibly difficult decision. It’s a decision that should only be made when absolutely necessary, driven by the need to protect the children. I wouldn’t have taken this step if it wasn’t essential.
As a father seeking custody in Germany, I knew I was at a disadvantage, but I was unaware of the full extent of the challenges I would face in the years to come.
The case involves two contrasting narratives from myself, the plaintiff, and the mother, the defendant. The court couldn’t examine some aspects of our stories, specifically the criminal acts we both allege. Despite this, the judge omitted these aspects and called for an expert assessment. The main request of this assessment was to conduct a psychological evaluation of the children and parents to determine our ability to exercise parental custody.
The children’s mother and defendant in this case refused my request for sole custody. Surprisingly, she did not pursue sole or any form of custody, even when her custody rights were temporarily suspended by the youth welfare office’s decision. She failed to challenge this decision or present evidence in court to demonstrate her capability to raise the children. Instead of seeking to regain her custody rights, she confined her defense strategy to an attempt to depict me as unfit for parenting.Considering she was represented by a family lawyer in court, despite her personal knowledge of family law being limited, how did this oversight occur?
Is this case on the brink of a miscarriage of justice, or a mistrial? Who, precisely, could identify a potential mistrial or miscarriage of justice? Who could intervene to address the shortcomings in the mother’s defense strategy? How is it possible that her family lawyer failed to identify the error? Finally, was this due to incompetence or an act of deception? I’m truly at a loss for what to believe.
It was only after the defendant switched lawyers that she openly agreed to custody being granted to the father, effectively trading her children’s custody for her right to remain in Germany!
Is such blatant use of children to achieve personal objectives a common practice in custody cases in Europe?
The entire process was a tremendous ordeal for the children, lasting a good 3 to 4 years. This included weekly home inspections, unexpected visits from the youth welfare office, meetings with their teachers, childcare institution, coaches, and the psychologist they were required to see for years following the custody court proceedings. They also had to interact with the judge, the court assistant, and have to explain about their unique circumstances of living with their single father.